Dox, Privacy, and Hypocrisy

[Hyena Dandy]

Doxing someone, for reference (I hope I"m using the right term) means "Tracking them down and revealing their personal information."

It bothers me that people do this, but there's something which bothers me more about it. That quite often the people doing this are the people who are turning around and talking about how important it is to protect internet privacy, and keep the government from being able to tie the actual, real life person to things they say online, or punish them for it.

If you oppose revealing someone's name and info either by an individual or the government, then that's fine, no hypocrisy. If you support it being done both by the government and by private individuals, that's at least consistent.

But I find it hypocritical that so many people are okay with someone on the internet who may and may not be trained to track someone down properly doing it, but cry foul, free speech, and talk about the importance of privacy when they hear that the Government wants to do it, but with more oversight, and with people who will be punished if they do it wrong.

I just hate hypocrisy, is all.

[crashhelmet]

I understand where you're coming from in this, but for me it comes down to a judgement call.

Doxing is what led "the internet" to find the woman that locked a cat in a trashcan

They also used it to find Kenny Glenn after he posted videos of him abusing his cat. He thought he could hide himself with a mask, but was still found out.

Like many other things, it can be used for actions both great and malicious.

[TheHuckster]

I understand where you're coming from in this, but for me it comes down to a judgement call.

Doxing is what led "the internet" to find the woman that locked a cat in a trashcan

They also used it to find Kenny Glenn after he posted videos of him abusing his cat. He thought he could hide himself with a mask, but was still found out.

Like many other things, it can be used for actions both great and malicious.

I believe, though, if you asked the average person, they'd support having the police (i.e. goverment) track them down or individuals tracking them down if the police don't do anything. The OP is talking about people who split hairs or inconsistently claim that the government would be wrong to find the culprit in either case (which is heinous, btw, both of those stories I found quite disturbing) but then would applaud justice by vigilantes who dox the abuser, or visa versa.

If someone is doing something that the government has no business tracking down, then I similarly condemn individuals tracking that person down and exposing their privacy.

[crashhelmet]

I believe, though, if you asked the average person, they'd support having the police (i.e. goverment) track them down or individuals tracking them down if the police don't do anything. The OP is talking about people who split hairs or inconsistently claim that the government would be wrong to find the culprit in either case (which is heinous, btw, both of those stories I found quite disturbing) but then would applaud justice by vigilantes who dox the abuser, or visa versa.

If someone is doing something that the government has no business tracking down, then I similarly condemn individuals tracking that person down and exposing their privacy.

There is a hypocrisy involved in it and we ourselves are the ones guilty of it. We don't want the government snooping in and invading our privacy, but we cheered Anonymous for finding the identities of the culprits in the links I referenced. We also cheered them for bringing the information about the rapists in Ohio to light. We cheered again when they publicly outed those that bullied Amanda Todd.

There is a problem where they sometimes release the wrong information. They find an address for Joe Smith in the city, not realizing there may be more than one Joe Smith. This is a somewhat common problem for vigilantes and wannabe heroes. They leap before they look. Even the armed civilian that got praise for helping stop the Tucson shootings said himself that he almost shot the wrong man.

It's a double standard. We praise it when it works for us, we decry it when it works against us.

Without the work that Anonymous did, this information may still be unknown. The desires to find the information out could be sitting in a folder in the "Still to be Done" pile on a detective's desk somewhere while new, more important (or higher profile) cases pile on top of it.

[TheHuckster]

It's a double standard. We praise it when it works for us, we decry it when it works against us.

I guess I see what you're saying. When the police get the bad guy, and do so through proper protocol, most people are supportive of it. If they do so by bending the law or abusing power, there's more criticism of the means they used to get to the end, regardless of whether the right person was apprehended.

On the flip side, you've got Anonymous who might use very questionable tactics to gain their information, and use that information sometimes controversially, but if they get the right person, people tend to applaud them, especially if the police dropped the ball during their own investigation.

So, yes, there is a form of hypocrisy involved, although I touches on a specific example of a more general kind of double standard: That is, if someone professional and trained (i.e. the police) fumbles their job or does it incorrectly, they are subject to greater criticism than someone who isn't professional or trained (i.e. some average person who does his/her own private investigation).

[siead_lietrathua]

i think there is a huge difference. i may not be able to explain it well, but here goes a try:
the average citizen doesn't NEED the government parenting every movie they make on the net 24/7, which is what any government plan seems to propose. it's reasonable for society as a whole to object to this because it is a basic form of control. when a government starts to police the internet, they can start to police the information. i don't think anyone wants content blocks like they have in some eastern countries. also, people should never be made to live in fear of their government, and constant surveillance is a fear tactic, even if it's painted under doing it "for your safety"

"doxying" is used to find a specific individual because of a specific event, usually criminal, and is not a long running process. it's like a police wire tap, without the warrant, for a loose comparative. it's seek and destroy as quick as possible, and doesn't leave monitoring devices behind except maybe on the offending individual when they find them.

tl;dr: it's comparing a fishing net to a fish hook on a string. they may get the same information, but are very different methods with very different side effects.